People v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA3

Filed 10/31/23 P. v. Financial Casualty & Surety CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097131

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62176271A)

v.

FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (hereafter the Surety) posted a bail bond to secure the release of a defendant in a criminal proceeding. The trial court ordered the bond forfeited when the defendant failed to appear in court on June 7, 2021, at an early status conference for a “plea or set.” The court denied the Surety’s motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond and entered summary judgment against the Surety pursuant to Penal Code section 1306. On appeal, the Surety argues: (1) the bond was exonerated because the defendant was on supervised release on his own recognizance (O.R.) rather than on bail; (2) the

1

bond was exonerated because the terms of the defendant’s release from custody were materially altered without notice to it when the court added supervised O.R.; and (3) the court had no jurisdiction to forfeit bail because the defendant had a sufficient excuse for his nonappearance as a matter of law. We disagree. The order denying the Surety’s motion to vacate the bail forfeiture and exonerate the bond is affirmed, and the Surety’s appeal from the summary judgment is dismissed. I. BACKGROUND On December 7, 2020, the court set bail at $500,000 and ordered supervised pretrial release if bail was posted. On December 14, 2020, the court granted the defendant’s request for a bail reduction to $300,000. There is no reporter’s transcript in the record for either proceeding. On December 25, 2020, the Surety posted bail. On January 25, 2021, the court and the parties discussed whether, when bail was lowered to $300,000, the intent had been that the defendant would be on supervised bail with GPS if he made bail. The court explained that had been its intent and that GPS would be required and the original supervised bail order would be followed. The court ordered the defendant to report to probation after court. The minutes for defendant’s next court appearances on March 8, 2021, and April 12, 2021, reflect that he was present and remained on supervised pretrial release on bail. On June 7, 2021, the defendant was not present. His counsel explained he had a copy of the pretrial release report that recommended the defendant be remanded. Counsel acknowledged the defendant had been on supervised bail with GPS. Counsel stated, “He did send me proof of a positive COVID-19 test. He is not present today. However, based on the report, I would defer to the Court on how the Court wants to proceed.” The prosecution argued, “The fact that he is not here with no authority or no excuse or reason, I would ask that the bench warrant issue at this time.” Defense counsel replied, “he did send me proof of a positive COVID-19 test and that is somewhere where he lives.”